this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
880 points (87.2% liked)
Political Memes
5453 readers
2969 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wrong. I wouldn't support Kamala regardless of her being the lesser evil. I would abstain, because neither of them are at all acceptable to me.
that accomplishes nothing but improving the odds of your last choice. It's not like your vote is an endorsement... everyone knows about strategic voting, so, the fact that you're voting strategically makes it obvious that you don't support that person just because you voted for them.
I doesn't improve either candidate's chances at all. And voting is an endorsement, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Not voting for a candidate neither increases nor decreases their chances. Voting for a candidate is what increases their chances, voting for their opponent is what decreases them.
Nope, it's actually mathematically false, you're the one twisting numbers around. Remove me from existence and Trump and Kamala's chances will be the same, so I'm not increasing or decreasing either's chances.
Definitionally, endorsing a candidate is when you say, "This candidate is the best choice and I intend to vote for them." It doesn't mean, "I agree with everything this candidate says or does." If you vote for a candidate, tell people you vote for them, and encourage others to vote for them, that is definitionally an endorsement.
I'm in my 30's. You're just wrong about everything you said.
Seriously man… how many people are you going to let eat your lunch before you just tap out?
You’re all over this post getting wrecked left and right. Just stop man. It’s getting sad.
False. If you chose not to, the chances remain the same.
Yes, the same, which is WORSE for the candidate you prefer.
No, the same which is the same for the candidate you prefer. The chances only change if you vote for them or for their opponent. It is objectively, mathematically false to say that the chances change when you do nothing, it's not even a coherent statement, doing nothing by definition changes nothing.
and the same is a lower chance for the candidate you prefer than if you had voted for them.
How are you confused by this???
if you vote for kamala
+1 chance for kamala
if you do not vote
+0 chance for kamala
If trump is an option, and you didn't increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump
Than if you had voted for them. You didn't say that before. When you don't specify that, the statement is false.
Relative to a baseline of starting nuclear war, I stopped a nuclear war today. That doesn't mean that I actually stopped a nuclear war in an absolute sense, or relative to doing nothing. If I went around telling people I stopped a nuclear war, I'd be lying. In the same way, it's false to say that not voting is "helping" Trump, unless you specify that you mean relative to doing something that hurts Trump.
For example, this is false.
There you go, you just said it yourself. Neither an increase nor a decrease.
how do you not understand that neither an increase or a decrease, when there are two choices, is equivalent to a neutral vote, and therefore you are increasing the odds of the side that you don't want to win, than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.
How is this so complex for you? I am genuinely baffled.
It's not at all complex, and I am not confused by it. You are just obviously and objectively wrong.
Of course, as long as you specify that, then you are correct. In the same way it's correct to say that I stopped a nuclear war today compared to if I had started one. But it is incorrect to say that I stopped a nuclear war with no disclaimer about what I'm comparing it to, and it is incorrect for you to claim that I'm helping Trump by not voting for Kamala with no disclaimer about where you are setting the baseline.
In an objective sense, I am not helping Trump. I am only helping him relative to if I were going to vote for Kamala (which I wasn't).
It would be much clearer to simply say, "You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala's chances and decrease Trump's," which is 100% true. But you can't accept that, because that's using language in a way that's actually fair and accurate. Instead, you'd rather make the dishonest, false accusation that I'm not merely failing to hurt Trump, but actively helping him. And then you call me names and say I'm "confused" and too dumb to understand when I call out your dishonesty and manipulative use of language.
NARRATOR: They were incredibly confused by it.
that is literally the exact same thing. By not increasing kamalas chances, you have increased trumps chances.
I do not understand how you are confused by this. At this point I have to just accept that there is just something wrong with your brain.
Can I drain a pool of water by standing next to it with a hose that's turned off? By not turning the water on, I am not increasing the amount of water in the pool, and according to you, not increasing is the same as decreasing, and it stands to reason that if I decrease the amount of water long enough, eventually there will be none left. That's the logic you're using and obviously it's nonsense.
In the same way that standing next to a pool with the hose turned off does not increase or decrease the amount of water in the pool, not voting for Kamala or Trump does not increase or decrease their chances of winning.
This is extremely simple. You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.
You are being purposely obtuse in pretending otherwise.
Your inaction will benefit trump. End of story.
If you don't vote for kamala, and you support kamala more, you are helping trump.
There are three options:
Rank them by which benefits trump the most, and you discover that +1 for kamala is better for kamala and worse for trump.
The fact that you cannot understand this is insane. Your inaction is still a choice that benefits the party you least support, because if you had voted for the party you don't least support, you'd be benefitting the party you support.
Even by your own example, not turning the water on will cause the pool to evaporate, which is not as bad as directly draining it, but still causing it to drain more than if you had done something to benefit it. Your inaction has consequences.
I understand this perfectly and I have never disputed it. In fact I've said it myself.
Compared to voting for Kamala, yes, voting third party benefits Trump. But it is not correct to say that it benefits Trump without that qualification.
Lmao. I am not "causing" the water to evaporate. If I gather a bunch of people together to stand next to a pool of water, will each of us "cause" it to disappear faster? Am I causing every puddle in the world to evaporate right now as we speak? This is so ridiculous I can't even be frustrated or annoyed by your nonsense anymore, you're just doubling down on absurdity into full clown shit.
The problem is that in the real world that qualification exists. There is no escaping it.
You're letting the water evaporate... which is no different.
You're letting trump have better odds.
Letting the water evaporate is not the same as causing the water to evaporate. Letting Trump win (if he will) is not the same as causing Trump to win or helping him win. The baseline is doing nothing. If I did not exist, then the odds would be the same. Therefore I cannot be said to be helping Trump. That's just not how language works. Otherwise you could just as easily say that I'm helping Kamala by not voting for Trump, at which is a clear contradiction.
"You're helping Trump compared to if you had voted Kamala?" Fine. "You're helping Trump?" False. That is how it is and no amount of saying otherwise or trying to play games with language is going to change it.
You're helping trump by not helping kamala.
If someone is running from someone with a knife, and you see which way they went, and the guy with the knife asks you which way they went, you should mislead that person. Anything else, and you're also at fault.
Not helping them win and not fighting against them ultimately mean you're benefitting them.
If nazis were up for election, and you didn't fight against them, you would be at fault for not fighting against them. You can twist words all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that not fighting against them is your choice and that benefits them.
You could've fought them, you agree that they're worse, but you didn't, so, you've benefitted them. They want you to do exactly what you're doing.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, you'll still be as wrong as saying that I'm draining a pool by standing next to it with an empty hose. It's simply not how language works and you can twist words around and tell me otherwise a thousand times, and it just means you'll be dead wrong a thousand times.
"At fault for not fighting something" you can argue that, sure. "Benefiting," or "helping" you cannot. There is no argument, it's just definitionally false.
Why does it matter, actually?
Not fighting trump is also bad. You're letting fascists take over by not fighting trump.
Could've said that from the start! You didn't have to die on this hill.
I don't especially want to continue the conversation into that with you after it took 20 comments of you slinging insults and shit over something that you now say doesn't matter to get here. If I have to pull teeth over something so simple, obvious, and relatively unimportant then I see no sense in discussing other stuff.
It's not as if the terms I was insisting on would make it impossible to criticize my position. There's no reason you couldn't have accepted those terms to start and continued the debate.
Oh no, you're still wrong about that, you letting fascists win is absolutely benefiting fascists. You refusing to accept that has required you to make insane leaps of mental gymnastics. I just gave up because no amount of logic can reach you.
"Insane leaps of mental gymnasics," like, "Doing nothing has no impact on the election."
As opposed to "logic," like, "Doing nothing is a +0 which is neither an increase nor a decrease except also it is a decrease because it's not an increase and not increasing is the same as decreasing because zero doesn't exist."
Tell you what, if doing nothing counts as helping someone, then rest assured that I'll give Kamala my "help."
I'm surprised that you seem to not realize that you helped bring Trump back in power. This was the plan, wasn't it? Jill Stein had no chance at gaining the office, but you rallied against Harris nonetheless.
Those .3-.5% in key states could have stopped Trump, and solidified under a banner that isn't anti-LGBTQ+.
The Green party essentially is under Trump.
First of all I live in Illinois, so my vote doesn't matter at all. Second, Harris would've needed a lot more that 0.3% to win, she lost PA by a solid 2.0%. Even if you do the unrealistic thing y'all do of adding third party votes to your candidate's total, you're not going to have enough to win.
But none of that is really relevant. The people who helped Trump win were the people who voted for him. I didn't help either candidate win because I didn't vote for either candidate. I helped Kamala exactly as much as I helped Trump.
I don't really have an interest in continuing this purely semantic argument where I consider myself to be objectively correct about the meaning of terminology.
Unfortunately your opinion has been deemed to be irrelevant. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the topic of which you speak, have no educated opinions and can be safely discarded from the conversation.
Please try again later.
Your logic doesn't make sense. We only get one or the other of them, that is the inevitable outcome of the election. It is going to be either Trump or Harris. You just said Trump is worse than Harris in a previous comment. If you legitimately believe Trump is worse then it is basic harm reduction to vote for the person who is capable of defeating him. Choosing to not vote or to vote third party reduces the chances of Harris winning and increases the chances of Trump winning. Either you actually do want Trump to win and are trolling or your ethics and values are incoherent.
Trump is worse than Harris, and one of them will win the election, that is true. But I don't agree that that means I should vote for Harris. I believe it is necessary to hold politicians to a minimum standard, and that refusing to vote for a candidate that doesn't meet that standard is a means of enforcing it. Even if a third party can't win this election, voting for them still serves to establish a credible threat of defection. This is one of many reasons why the ideology of lesser-evilism is incorrect.
It does neither of those things, actually. It neither increases nor decreases the chances of either candidate winning.
The things you believe do not make sense or map to actual reality.
What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?
If there's only two possible outcomes between three choices, and one of those choices is clearly the worst outcome and another one of them is clearly not a possible outcome, which choice would you make and why?
If a large enough bloc of voters won't vote unless you support a specific policy, then you have more of an incentive to support that policy. Do you dispute this?
There's not a yes or no answer to that question except in a theoretical abstraction. In reality politics is complicated, messy, and frequently dumb. The only real answer is it depends on the policy, the demographics and voting habits of the bloc, the politician and parties involved, and myriad more factors beyond these obvious ones. I dispute that allowing Trump to win by not voting for Harris will accomplish anything useful or positive, no one will be taught the lesson you purport to be teaching if that happens.
Alright, so at least as a theoretical abstraction, it has potential to work. You can argue whether I'm right to try to apply that tactic in this situation, but as a tactic, it is very much logical and coherent.
You haven't actually presented any reason why, given that it works in the abstract, it couldn't work in this situation. All you've said is that it won't work, but unless you can actually support that position there's no reason to think that.
You didn't answer my question, and thinking through your answer should make it clear why applying that tactic is the dumbest choice you can make under the circumstances if you genuinely believe Trump winning is the worse outcome.
Establishing a credible threat of defection in response to unacceptable policy. Building up a party that actually represents my interests.
That question is much too abstract.
A third party winning this election is not realistic, but there are other tactical and ethical reasons for voting for them that have nothing to do with winning, as I said.